Garratt v. Dailey
279 P.2d 1091 · Washington Supreme Court · 1955
Facts
Brian Dailey (age five years, nine months) was visiting with Naomi Garratt and Ruth Garratt in the backyard of the plaintiff's home on July 16, 1951. Ruth Garratt came out into the backyard and was about to sit down in a wood and canvas lawn chair. Brian Dailey picked up the chair, moved it sideways a few feet, and seated himself in it. He then discovered Ruth Garratt about to sit down where the chair had formerly been, so he hurriedly got up and attempted to move it back to aid her. Due to his small size and lack of dexterity, he was unable to get the chair under her in time, and she fell to the ground, sustaining a fractured hip and other injuries.
Procedural history
The plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing the action by the trial court. The trial court found that Brian did not have any willful or unlawful purpose, intent to injure, or intent to bring about unauthorized contact. The amount of Ruth Garratt's damage was found to be eleven thousand dollars to obviate the necessity of a retrial.
Issue
The liability of an infant for an alleged battery is presented to this court for the first time.
Holding
The cause is remanded for clarification, with instructions to make definite findings on the issue of whether Brian Dailey knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would attempt to sit down where the chair which he moved had been, and to change the judgment if the findings warrant it.
Rule
A battery is the intentional infliction of a harmful bodily contact upon another. An act which, directly or indirectly, is the legal cause of a harmful contact with another's person makes the actor liable if the act is done with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact or an apprehension thereof, and the contact is not consented to or otherwise privileged. The act must be done for the purpose of causing the contact or apprehension or with knowledge on the part of the actor that such contact or apprehension is substantially certain to be produced. It is not enough that the act itself is intentionally done, unless the actor realizes that to a substantial certainty, the contact or apprehension will result.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.